The debate has started, long live the debate! I'm talking about the Constitution for Europe. I have long contended that the main enemy of European integration is not Euroscepticism but ignorance, a lack of understanding of its reality and its real objectives; this is true in general, and for the Constitution in particular. An open and well-informed public debate, in which both proponents and opponents of a united Europe have their say, is quite welcome, and will allow people to analyse the Constitution in full awareness of the situation (see, for example, this column from 24 June).
So now the debate's in place, and important contributions have been made which may help to enlighten the citizens and influence their future choices (directly, in the case of referendums, and indirectly by parliamentary voting) will not be lacking. Here is my personal choice between the stances I have been made familiar with.
1. The most important: ETUC's (European Trade Union Confederation) appeal to the workers to vote in favour of the Constitution, and the statements of its Secretary General, the Briton John Monks. In "Le Monde" of 17 July he explained: "The Constitution represents a step forward for the workers. We welcome the reference to full employment, progress in terms of social dialogue, and the requirement for a social summit. Two steps forward should have been made; we have made one. In a European perspective, we have gained something (...). Many players, and on this point I would put the German government under the same heading as the British one, feel that Europe is too regulated, too constrained by too much social State, employment laws and strong collective conventions. This is the modish vision, and the unionists must swim against this tide. But the battle is not yet lost (...). One of the greatest successes of European integration is that the poorest countries have caught up with the richest. The gap [between the new and old Member States] is bigger today, but the new Member States have a strong desire to catch up on the standards of the West. They will create jobs in the West, even if a few will be lost. The history of the EU shows that the single market generates growth, wealth and jobs. The role of the unionists is to ensure that growth is shared out fairly (...). A European minimum wage seems unrealistic to me: the risk is that is will drive down salaries in the West".
2. The most expected: the invitation from the British Minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, to the left to "say yes to Europe". What's surprising in the article he published earlier this month in a few European journals, is not so much the support for the Constitution (as Tony Blair decided to put it to referendum, logic supposes that his government will campaign for the "yes" vote), but the tone and motivations. I paraphrase: "a strong Europe is essential for the survival of the Left in the 21st century. Opposition to Europe is the new populism. A Left which rejects the reason for the populism is condemned to decline and to failure. To say no to the Constitutional Treaty would be a mistake for the European left, a disaster for the trade unions, and would endanger the future of 300 million workers. The EU is the only part of the world where workers' rights are part and parcel of the constitutional rights attached to citizenship". Having pointed out that the "Charter of Fundamental Rights" included in the Treaty retains the objectives of full employment, social progress, social protection, gender equality and solidarity between generations, he notes: "In Latin America, in Africa and in Asia, workers do not even dare to dream of such protection. Even in the United States (...), 130 million workers do not enjoy the rights which every worker in the Union may take for granted". I will come back to Denis MacShane's comments on the definition of the content of European social policy.
3. The most embarrassing: stances which confirm the reservations and reluctance of a proportion of French Socialists on the ratification of the Constitution. I had hoped that Michel Rocard's outpouring against these reservations (see this column from 15 April) and the almost brutal steadfastness of the Socialist parties in other Member States (see this column from 10 July) might have demolished some staggering attitudes. This has not been the case, and Laurent Fabius himself laid down four conditions which perpetuate unhealthy apathy. Why unhealthy? Because his conditions bear no relation to the Constitution. I need only quote them to understand this: reform of the Stability Pact towards employment and economic co-ordination; increase of the EU budget; tax harmonisation to discourage delocalisation; European framework directive for "public services" (services of general interest, SGIs). These demands are certainly legitimate, but they belong to a government programme, an election campaign, and then European negotiations. Mr Fabius is calling for decisions on these to be "taken before the referendum" (scheduled for 2005), without which his attitude to the Constitution "will be a no".
A few reasons for optimism. Here, in my view, we are getting into the domain of the unreasonable, the irrational. If, however, we can get past this gut reaction, we can be optimistic on the definitive attitude of the French Socialists to the referendum. We are able to note that the "four conditions" quoted by Mr Fabius correspond to France's official positions, which are shared by the vast majority of political parties. Defending the SGIs is a traditional French position, the need to tweak the Stability Pact is recognised almost universally, tax provisions to combat delocalisation have been formally requested in Brussels by the current Minister for the Economy, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Foreign Minister Michel Barnier has come out in favour of a certain flexibility on the Union's budget. When the time comes, therefore, it will not sit uncomfortably for Laurent Fabius to announce that the four conditions have been met and to call upon his party to campaign for the "yes". Current reservations could then be considered as a prelude to future election campaigns, and a shrewd way of not condemning the ardour of some leaders and militants of his party, who straddle the fashionable anti-European cause, based on a lack of understanding of Community realities. We must trust Michel Rocard, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Pierre Moscovoci to help the traditional socialist attitude to prevail, to go above political divisions to help make the referendum a European success, bringing in its wake similar results elsewhere, and carving out for France a guiding role in this enterprise.
The Constitution is not a government programme
The French debate provides me with the opportunity to speak out once more against any confusion between the Constitution and a government programme. Michel Barnier has already highlighted this. I refer once more to the article quoted previously by the British Minister Denis MacShane, who says: "the European Constitutional Treaty belongs neither to the Right nor to the Left. In the same way as the French or the American Constitution does not define the political or social choices of France or the US, the European Constitution does not in itself define the political and social choices of Europe. It is up to the Left to set a road map to achieve full employment and to perfect social protection in Europe".
Similar ideas have been developed by Philippe Herzog, who feels that the personal renunciation in the European Parliament in no way means that the battle for Europe has been given up (see our bulletin of 4 September, p.15). In his chronicle published in "Le Figaro" of 30 August, he puts what he sees as a fundamental question: "does [the Constitution] offer a sufficiently flexible and open framework for the necessary progress to be made?". His answer is in the affirmative. Despite its shortcomings, the Constitution includes progress "for employee mobility, services of general interest, asylum and immigration". It opens up the possibility for the quality of work and life-long learning to be improved, and to boost cohesion polices, and thus bypass the "rhetoric of Europe". The capacity to make concrete the possibilities opened up by the Constitution will then depend on the policies to be implemented, which is to say the political goodwill the governments show and the efficiency of the institutions of the EU. And this will depend largely on the choice of the people. According to Mr Herzog, "Today, the Constitution is the only strong symbolic link being proposed [to the European people], and we know that political goodwill can exceed the boundaries of the law. It will take ten years to create a society in Europe and to re-found the economic Union: I would like the referendum to be the occasion for formal collective commitment in this direction".
The Paris office of the European Parliament has just made a contribution, having inventoried and analysed the social plank of the Constitution. Jean-Guy Giraud, the head of this office, concluded: "Beyond the competencies, the rights, the principles and the objectives it establishes, the Constitution determines neither the scope nor the nature of the social policy the Union could adopt. The role of any Constitution is to establish the internal framework of which the competent Institutions (Commission, Parliament and Council in the case of the EU) can exercise their prerogatives, without the Constitution being able to pre-determine their contents".
There is nothing to add to that. The debate on the Constitution should clarify this essential aspect, even for public opinion.
(F.R.)